Teardown confirms: new iPad is really iPad 3.5

There's just a few swapped parts between 3rd and 4th-gen devices.

It should come as no surprise that Apple's fourth-generation iPad, officially released today, is barely discernible from the third-generation iPad released earlier this year. Even the teardown experts at iFixit had a hard time telling the two devices apart after cracking open their aluminum and glass shells. The real takeaway is that third-generation iPad owners shouldn't feel like they are stuck with yesterday's tech.

The iPad 4 (as iFixit and many others have taken to calling it) has the exact same aluminum unibody shell, the exact same 43 Whr battery, and the exact same 9.7", 2048×1536 pixel Retina display. The 30-pin Dock connector has been swapped for Apple's new, smaller Lightning connector, the A5X processor swapped for a faster A6X, and the FaceTime camera upgraded to FaceTime HD. Beyond that, there's nothing new here at all.

Enlarge/ One of these is actually not like the other. The top device has a FaceTime HD camera, while the other has a lowly VGA FaceTime camera.

"If you're kicking yourself because you just bought an iPad 3, we've got some welcome news: not too much has changed in the iPad 4," iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens said via e-mail.

The extra speed we expect from the A6X will be nice for apps that can benefit from it, and the Lightning connector could make juggling charging cables less of a hassle if you have an iPhone 5 or perhaps one of the newer iPods. If you use your iPad's front-facing camera often, the extra resolution may also be welcome. We're not sure these are reasons to rush out and buy a new iPad, though, if you already bought an iPad 3 in the last several months.

Enlarge/ Above: the top of the iPad 4 logic board, with its Apple-designed A6X processor. Below: the bottom features 1GB of RAM, along with power mangement and support chips.

One important change for international users—a change that iFixit couldn't examine on its Wi-Fi-only model—is that Apple has updated the LTE hardware to newer Qualcomm chips which can access LTE frequencies used outside North America. The third-generation iPad is limited to HSPA+ speeds outside the US and Canada; if you really must have faster LTE access for your iPad, this is probably the most worthwhile reason to upgrade.

Our review iPad should be arriving this afternoon via FedEx delivery, and we'll be sure to put it through its paces to see what kind of performance improvements the new A6X processor can offer. Stay tuned for our report in the next few days.

Really it's just what the iPad 3 was supposed to be, plus moving to Lightning. The A5X was supposedly the plan B chip, and it does seem like it from the heat, battery life, flip chip design, off-PoP RAM, etc. I don't expect these half year cycles will become the new norm, this was just a corrective move.

Really it's just what the iPad 3 was supposed to be, plus moving to Lightning. The A5X was supposedly the plan B chip, and it does seem like it from the heat, battery life, flip chip design, off-PoP RAM, etc. I don't expect these half year cycles will become the new norm, this was just a corrective move.

Do you see Apple going back to a March/April release window? Or dropping iPad 5 next fall, as it appears to have become the norm for the iPhone? IT might make sense from a holiday shopping perspective, but it seems like it could increasingly put the bulk of Apple's sales and profits back into F1Q, as happened when Apple's fortune's rested squarely on the shoulders of the iPod.

So an entirely new SoC with twice the performance, and an entirely new connector counts for so little these days? What other differences would have made this a "real" version 4 model? That's without nutty speculation, of course.

Good to know that the only real differences are performance related. Having the same aluminum case makes me feel a lot better.

Core 2 Duo Macs are the same as i5 ones, right?

This. If the point of "retina" displays is that they essentially can't get any better, then having the same display in the iPad 3, iPad 4, and iPad 49 is a wash. So what's left to upgrade in the thing, the processor and cameras?

I dunno, the A6X CPU is substantially different from the A5X - the CPU is much better, and as illustrated by Chipworks, the GPU area has grown 2x over the A6 - so its really a lot more powerful in terms of graphics.

Just because the outside is unchanged doesn't make it any less of a new generation. If anything, its following the iPhone cadence - only upgrade the design every 2 iterations and upgrade the internals every year. Next fall, we'll see a new design for the iPad that is slimmer (and probably more iPad mini-like) because of a smaller battery and more energy efficient display.

Well... the article is all well and good for the Ars crowd which tends towards the tech-centric, however, Apple caters in large part to the less tech-centric "it just works" crowd. So, for most iPad 3 owners there can still be a large bout of buyer's remorse to deal with. They just bought an iPad 3, it was top of the line. Now, only a few short months later, iPad 4 is here and by Apple's own advertising, it's going to tell them it's faster, has a better camera, and now has biggest telecommunications buzzword around, "LTE".Minimal upgrades indeed, but key marketing upgrades nonetheless.

Regardless of buyer's remorse, people will still buy it in droves, albeit maybe ever so slightly wistfully.

Good to know that the only real differences are performance related. Having the same aluminum case makes me feel a lot better.

Core 2 Duo Macs are the same as i5 ones, right?

I'm not saying there's no point to your snark, but honestly, who have you heard complaining about the performance of the iPad 3? Effectively, we have the iPod touch, iPad mini, iPad 2, iPad 3, and iPhone 4S all running on dual Cortex A9 based cores. Only the iPhone 5 and iPad 4 have A6 cores, so it's not like there's tons of software only targeting the A6.

So an entirely new SoC with twice the performance, and an entirely new connector counts for so little these days? What other differences would have made this a "real" version 4 model? That's without nutty speculation, of course.

Possibilities: improvements to the screen similar to the iPhone 5 (pixels closer to surface), redesigned case to match the iPad Mini (including stereo speakers), more RAM, bigger battery, etc...

This is a pretty cool refresh for those that felt that the regular iPad had to be switched to lightning connector sooner rather than later, and waited.

The fact that their concurrent are trying to talk pixel, while never acknowledging that over a certain pixel density most people won't notice a difference, proves Apple is still the king of the tablet market.

I honestly feel that the iPhone and iPad line have mostly (the mini will have to switch to a retina display some day) reach the point where users will get incremental performances updates like with the Mac and iPod lines... That is once Jony Ive has cleaned the GUI.

Really it's just what the iPad 3 was supposed to be, plus moving to Lightning. The A5X was supposedly the plan B chip, and it does seem like it from the heat, battery life, flip chip design, off-PoP RAM, etc. I don't expect these half year cycles will become the new norm, this was just a corrective move.

Do you see Apple going back to a March/April release window? Or dropping iPad 5 next fall, as it appears to have become the norm for the iPhone? IT might make sense from a holiday shopping perspective, but it seems like it could increasingly put the bulk of Apple's sales and profits back into F1Q, as happened when Apple's fortune's rested squarely on the shoulders of the iPod.

I am pretty sure Apple will keep the fall release window for the iPad. This way, they can have their absolute flagship product, the iPhone, be the first to feature new CPUs, new software, new everything, with the iPad to follow a while later.Right now, I just don't see what Apple would upgrade in the iPhone next spring / summer. Nothing on the outside, that's for sure, and the A6 will be plenty fast even next year, considering that Apple will have many A5- or even A4-based products still in their product lineup.

This is why it's just called an iPad now. Without the numbering system, the debate about whether the number is justified is moot. Apple is free to incorporate advancements closer to when they are available, not once there are enough of them to make it the next number up.

The wife's gen 1 iPad was feeling very sluggish so the timing was good for an upgrade. Had the mini a retina display I would have gone with that, instead I picked her up a gen 4 iPad. Be interesting to compare it to my gen 3 iPad provided by work (that still is awesome).

I dunno, the A6X CPU is substantially different from the A5X - the CPU is much better, and as illustrated by Chipworks, the GPU area has grown 2x over the A6 - so its really a lot more powerful in terms of graphics.

The GPU has doubled in area because it has double the number of cores of the A6. It has four SGX543 cores, just like the A5X. The move to 32nm likely allowed Apple to raise the clock frequency, which would account for the claims of 2X graphics performance improvement (as we explained last week). But it's the same GPU, and its still driving the same super high 2048x1536 resolution as in the iPad 3. So for a large portion of apps, we don't expect amazing, OMG I MUST HAVE THIS performance. GarageBand, iMovie, iPhoto, and 3D games—absolutely, there will be better performance. Facebook, Tweetbot, Words with Friends, magazines, Pages, Numbers... not so much.

Quote:

Just because the outside is unchanged doesn't make it any less of a new generation. If anything, its following the iPhone cadence - only upgrade the design every 2 iterations and upgrade the internals every year. Next fall, we'll see a new design for the iPad that is slimmer (and probably more iPad mini-like) because of a smaller battery and more energy efficient display.

True, but let's remember that the iPhone 4S wasn't a particularly compelling upgrade for iPhone 4 users. I'd say the iPad 3 is even LESS compelling for iPad 3 owners in that respect. Now, iPad 2 users not that impressed with the iPad 3 may have something to entice them. And international users, as we mentioned, will likely appreciate the "true" 4G network compatibility.

But no, a few tiny tweaks is really nothing anyone should be getting their panties in a bunch over. So far, from what we are hearing, no one is beating Apple's store doors down looking for the 4th-gen iPad, either.

Only the iPhone 5 and iPad 4 have A6 cores, so it's not like there's tons of software only targeting the A6.

New software is being developed all the time to push the performance envelope. Something that was questionable on an A5 may be smooth on an A6. It doesn't have to target the A6 specifically, but the A6 makes more software practical than before and frees developers to push further.

Saying the difference between the A5X and the A6X is no big deal is like telling the guy that got the Core i3 that the Core i7(roughly twice the processing power) for the same price that you just missed is no big deal. I guess "no big deal" is fairly relative. But yeah, w/e.

Only the iPhone 5 and iPad 4 have A6 cores, so it's not like there's tons of software only targeting the A6.

New software is being developed all the time to push the performance envelope. Something that was questionable on an A5 may be smooth on an A6. It doesn't have to target the A6 specifically, but the A6 makes more software practical than before and frees developers to push further.

No question, there are developers that are going to push the envelop. And no question, there are going to be apps that can tangibly benefit from increased CPU power.

And eventually, the A6 will become the performance bar. But that day is not today.

So, as the point, the majority of iPad 3 owners really don't have a compelling reason to upgrade their device, unless LTE outside the US is an important factor. The vast majority of available and in-use iOS devices are A5-based, and the vast majority of developers are going to ensure decent performance for that chip for a good long while.

Good to know that the only real differences are performance related. Having the same aluminum case makes me feel a lot better.

Core 2 Duo Macs are the same as i5 ones, right?

I'm not saying there's no point to your snark, but honestly, who have you heard complaining about the performance of the iPad 3? Effectively, we have the iPod touch, iPad mini, iPad 2, iPad 3, and iPhone 4S all running on dual Cortex A9 based cores. Only the iPhone 5 and iPad 4 have A6 cores, so it's not like there's tons of software only targeting the A6.

How long do you think it will be, now that both the iPhone and iPad have A6?

That argument is kind of like saying "there's no reason to buy an iPad, it mostly just runs iPhone apps" back in 2010.

I've got an original iPad and an iPad 3. The difference is night and day, apps that *used* to run well on the original are now godawfully slow, because developers are (rightly, IMO) targeting the newer platforms with their updates.

My frustration is partly with Apple for releasing the iPad 3 at all when they clearly should have just waited a few more months and released the iPad 4 as the "Retina iPad". It's also with the coverage. Shame on Ars for setting the tone of "eh, no big deal, it's only got a few different parts".

It's like saying "Oh, that sports car you just bought a couple months ago? There's a new one out now with twice the horsepower, for the same price. But don't worry, if you do a teardown you'll see it's the same car, just with a different engine."

Saying the difference between the A5X and the A6X is no big deal is like telling the guy that got the Core i3 that the Core i7(roughly twice the processing power) for the same price that you just missed is no big deal. I guess "no big deal" is fairly relative. But yeah, w/e.

Does that guy surf Facebook and read e-books all day? Then yeah, I'd say it's no big deal.

I've been using a C2D-based MacBook Air for the last two years; I've never been held up by its processing power, not even when using Photoshop. (Now, it's SSD capacity is a different story altogether....)

It's like saying "Oh, that sports car you just bought a couple months ago? There's a new one out now with twice the horsepower, for the same price. But don't worry, if you do a teardown you'll see it's the same car, just with a different engine."

I'm not really sure that's a very apt comparison, but for the moment let's assume it is. Then I would say "Well, the 0-60 time is actually the same except on newer roads that have better pavement. Oh, and you have to use a better grade of gasoline that's not available at any gas stations yet."

I think Apple is going to have a really hard time coming up with something entirely new for iPad 5 and beyond. Obviously faster CPU, more flash memory, maybe thinner with less bezel, stereo speakers, better battery technology or a solar panel, and 10 different colors, but what else is left that can be cramed into a tablet? Lord knows I don't want a kickstand unless they can do something like in Terminator with liquid metal that morphs and retracts without a hinge!!!

The only thing I can think of at the moment is to eliminate the touchscreen and attach the computing device to your brainstem, use the human body as a battery, the display shows up on your retina and you waive your arms in the air (or just think with brainwaves) to control it.

I think Apple is going to have a really hard time coming up with something entirely new for iPad 5 and beyond. ...

Yes. The next steps should come in software. Which, of course, will require lots more of CPU power.Although, the retina display leaves room for improvement in terms of battery drain... the current iPad is just too thick and too heavy due to the huge battery.